Robin, notwithstanding the various problematical and philosophical difficulties that uses of language summon forth, my point was to differentiate the “usual” understanding of the word “reception” to the word “reception” that is associated with the term “reception theory”. By “usual” I mean the commonly accepted dictionary definition of the word, rather than that associated with its theoretical uses in relation to literary theory.
Whilst I agree that words and their meanings are amenable to lexical and hermeneutical “difficulties”, I do believe that words can have unproblematical uses in everyday language and discourse, such as the one we are having here.
By “semantic reception” I mean the way the words of a poem or song are processed by readers and listener. I use the word “semantic” in relation to “reception” to distinguish an earlier use of “reception” made by someone here, that suggested that the processing of musical sound by the brain was the same as that of words being heard and processed by the brain.
---------------------------Original Message--------------------------
Robin Hamilton wrote:
David,
As you're now defending your use of the term "reception" as that found in it's "obvious meaning" ...
-- guh! I just noticed that! -- where do we find this apparently transparent-to-all-your-readers, "obvious meaning", since it's the lexicographer's pot of gold at the end of the rainbow --
... could you kindly explain to me what exactly, in that case, you mean by the term, "semantic reception"?
You seem to be, continually and throughout this -- I won't call it, "dialogue" -- using words in a way which is peculiar to yourself, then complaining because your audience doesn't understand you.
So, once more, "semantic reception"?
To me, meaning is among other things, transactional, so how can semantics, which, and I may be wrong here, I take you to be using as a partial synonym, be part of a transaction in which it is generated?
I'm confused.
Robin
|